American Renaissance - 2 - November 2011
Letters from Readers
Sir—Thomas Jackson summarizes
evolutionary theory in his October re-view of Richard Lynn’s
:Prof. Lynn explains that evolu-
tion works through two effects:greater reproductive success forthe t and higher mortality for theless t. . . . One study of Kalahari
Bushmen found that virtually allwomen had children but only 39
percent of men did. Polygamy istherefore eugenic. . . . Prof. Lynntherefore argues that the CatholicChurch had a dysgenic effect on theWest when it banned polygamy. He
wonders why the Roman emperorswho adopted Christianity deprivedthemselves of multiple wives andscores of children.
The Catholic Church encourageda tradition of monogamy that wasalready the norm in pagan Greek andRoman society. Greek literature presup
poses monogamy from the high epic of
to the low comedy of Aristophanes’
. The highest
praise for a Roman matron was
(a one-husband woman, married only
once). The Bible’s praise of monogamyfrom Genesis 2:24 to 1 Tim 3:2 was
consistent with Roman
church imposed monogamy on German
barbarians, not Roman emperors.If evolutionary theory as Prof. Lynnexplains it is true, cultures that live by it
will be more intelligent, prosperous, and
creative than those that reject it. If we
compare the Kalahari Bushmen, Prof.
Lynn’s example of evolution at work,with the peoples of European stock,
whose monogamous way of life contra
-dicts the basic principles of evolutionarytheory, is the prediction confirmed?In
, Chapter9, “What Makes Western Culture
Unique?” Kevin MacDonald discussesmonogamy as one of Western ”cultural
transformations that cannot be predicted
by any biological/evolutionary theory.”
Not predicted? Never in the history of science has any theory been more com-
pletely falsied than evolutionary theory
in the face of observable phenomena.
Even Marx, Freud, and Keynes must
yield to it before the completeness withwhich its most important predictions
have been falsied (and the stubborn
refusal of its tenured adherents to ac-
knowledge this).Patrick J. Buchanan in a series of books has made a “fact-based” argumentthat the current plight of Europeans in
their ancestral homelands is due to re-
jecting and ignoring traditional Christianreligion: Catholic, Protestant and Or
thodox. There seems to be a signicantcorrelation between rejecting the Bible
for Darwinism and reduced “reproduc-
tive success.” If Darwinians are really
sincere in their commitment to “repro-
ductive success” as the marker of humanfulllment, they should stop maligning
distinctive traits of Western civilization,
like monogamy and Christianity, and be
-take themselves to the nearest church torequest baptism for themselves and theirwife and child. If they reject this advice,I predict that they will soon join their
role models, the Kalahari Bushmen, in
the dustbin of history.
Christian Kopff, Louisville, Col.Sir—Hooray for Ying Ma (see “TalesFrom the Hood,” July, 2011). At least
Asians are (sometimes) prepared todescribe race relations as they actuallyare.Blacks have no idea how much whitescoddle and excuse them. Mexicans
and Asians will not forgive wildingand ash-mobbing, nor will they hire
incompetent blacks in the name of
“diversity.”It is amazing that at least some black“leaders” do not realize this. If they had
any sense, they would be the most vocal
supporters of immigration control in the
country. Instead, they are deluded by
fantasies about a “rainbow coalition”that will wring yet more concessions outof the bottomless pit of white generosity.
They are in for a nasty surprise.
Susan Schwartz, Chicago, Il.
Sir—I was pleased to see in the latest
issue that David Yeagley is suing JeffreyImm, Daryl Jenkins, and the lot. Theyshould be made to pay for pressuring
hotels to cancel contracts with American
Renaissance. I’m also glad to see that
AR has a secure location for a confer-ence in 2012. I’ll be there, for sure.
John Picotti, Estacada, Or.Sir—I was glad to see your write upin the October “O Tempora” sectionabout Ian Deary’s research on genes andintelligence. He and his team have nal
-ly done what pre-DNA studies could not
do: prove that intelligence has a genetic
basis. Until now, we have had virtuallyirrefutable evidence—from twin studiesand the like—but no one had been able
to point to specic genes and say: “Thisis what makes people smart.”
Unfortunately, we’re not quite thereyet. Dr. Deary has only shown, to astatistical certainty, that particularDNA sequences are correlated with
intelligence. He has not yet been ableto pinpoint specic genes that code forhigh IQ, and we are probably a long wayfrom understanding the chemical path
-ways that lead from particular alleles
to more efcient brains. However, thescientic foundation has been laid, andwith enough processing power we willnd at least some of the no doubt manygenes that contribute to intelligence.
And there can be no doubt that those
genes are not distributed equally in all
No wonder Dr. Deary’s research got
so little attention in the mainstreampress.Paul Arden, Novi, Mich.